An Interview with Dr. Joseph ColesonMost of my authors are reasonably smart people—church leaders, college professors, pastors, and the like. Even so, I was intrigued to learn that one of my writers was not merely an expert in biblical Hebrew but also a translator of what has become the fastest-growing new version of the Bible—the New Living Translation (NLT).
Joseph Coleson (I call him Joe, but not everybody gets away with that) earned his Ph.D. in Near Eastern and Judaic Studies from Brandeis in 1982. Since 1995 he has been professor of Old Testament at Nazarene Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Mo. He has also pastored for a dozen years, authored too many scholarly articles to list here, and currently edits the Wesleyan Theological Perspectives series published by yours truly.
Joe took a break from his summer writing schedule to answer a few questions about Bible translation in general and the NLT in particular.
What was your involvement in translating the NLT?My initial involvement was as a member of the team responsible for Hosea through Zephaniah in the Minor Prophets. Then all team members were invited to make suggestions where we wished, especially as version 2.0 was in preparation. Since then, I’ve done study notes on Joshua and Ruth for the study Bible coming out in September, and am nearly finished with Joshua for the commentary series.
What’s the distinctive of this translation?The distinctive still remains the flavor, or tone, of Ken Taylor’s original Living Bible. The change in creating the New Living Translation was to make that paraphrase a real, bona fide translation. All the reports I hear from around the world (not all from Tyndale House, by a long shot) are that the NLT is an inviting, readable version, attracting people who’ve never before read the Bible for its own sake, just because they want to.
What were the aims of the translation team?Our first mandate was, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”; Tyndale wanted (rightly) to preserve and update the readability of the Living Bible—which did, after all, lead the way in many respects in the renewal of interest in Bible translation in the mid-20th century. Where it needed to change to be a dynamic translation, rather than a free paraphrase, we were to suggest the changes we thought would do that.
What do you like about the NLT?I think we accomplished those aims; the NLT is a translation, not a paraphrase, but it retains and updates the fresh, exciting, compelling voice of the “old” Living Bible.
Do you have any criticisms of the translation? I do wish it were gender inclusive where the Hebrew and Greek texts call for that—which is a great many places most folks don’t suspect. I’m not talking “politically correct” here; I’m talking accurate translation so the Bible speaks as it was intended to speak, and as ancient readers understood it, or should have.
Why have we seen so many new translations recently?It began out of real need. No translation ever again will last as long and as well as the KJV did. Now the active life of almost any translation will be perhaps twenty or thirty years at most, unless it’s updated, as many “new” translations have been and are being. A less honorable motive for a few new translations is profit, or marketing. (Notice I didn’t say “dishonorable,” only “less honorable.”)
Some might say the NLT is not an “accurate” translation. How would you respond to that?
Except for the gender accuracy issue, I rate it at just under the NRSV and the NASB (NASB is not gender inclusive, either), and above several others I won’t name here.
Gender inclusion is a bit of a hot-button with some. What’s your opinion?I seem to have anticipated this one, haven’t I? But I can’t say it too strongly: not to reflect the text accurately at points where the text is intended to include both men and women, is to betray the text and its Author. (Is that strong enough?) The places where non-gender-inclusive English is a betrayal of the Hebrew or Greek text are more numerous than one may think, if one’s only language is English.
With respect to God, we should leave masculine pronouns in the text as masculine pronouns. We also should find a word or phrase that translates Shaddai for what it is, the major feminine title for God in the Hebrew Bible—“the God who Nourishes,” “the God who Sustains,” or something like that; literally, it is “the breasted One.” (We should retire the misleading Almighty, as a translation of Shaddai.)
Which translation do you favor for serious study?I allow my students to choose their own versions, with a few being off limits. When they ask, I rate as I mentioned above—NLT just a bit below NRSV and NASB, perhaps because NLT does represent a bit more the “dynamic equivalence” translation philosophy; the other two, more the “formal equivalence” philosophy. That can make a difference sometimes (though less often than one may think) in word by word and phrase by phrase reading and study.
Many of us read a variety of English translations from time to time—for what specific readership or use would you recommend the NLT? (i.e., devotional reading, study, preaching preparation, etc.)
I recommend it for all three purposes you mention. But I wouldn’t use NLT (or any other) by itself for close study and/or sermon prep. In those contexts, for those who don’t have Hebrew and/or Greek, I recommend using and comparing several translations together. For the kind of daily reading you’re encouraging on your blog this summer, NLT is excellent. When I want to read straight through a book in one or two sittings, I use NLT.
Do you see any theological biases in the NLT?Not much, and nothing that’s particular to the NLT. In most cases, claiming bias in mainstream Protestant translations may say more about the one making the claim, than about the translation.
Do you see a need for any other English translations at present?“At present,” no, we don’t “need” more. But we shouldn’t stop the process; it takes a long time to produce a new translation. Those available now probably can minister to my grandchildren, who are acquiring their language skills now. But their children may need new ones.
If we don’t need more, why will we continue to see new English versions appear?Though produced originally in other languages, the Bible remains the greatest treasure of English literature. We’re not going to stop people who love both Bible and literature from translating it, nor should we try. Rather, we should expect high standards—including the complex preparation required in many fields, and integrity, to name only two—of those who offer us new translations.
Any chance of creating a translation by Wesleyan scholars?I would like to see a translation produced by Wesleyan scholars. Maybe we are the ones who “need” a new one, as we are the one theological tradition not well served, at a few important points, by the translations currently available. Among the Wesleyan/Holiness denominations and those in the UMC who’ve maintained or recovered their Wesleyan roots, I think we have enough OT and NT scholars now that we could pull it off.
Are you still excited about Bible reading after all these years?Yes! I began my own journey of Bible translation in Dr. Leo Cox’s first-year Greek class forty-three years ago this fall. Since then, I’ve studied and taught most of the Semitic languages (and Greek, too)—Hebrew for over thirty years now. It just gets better and better! I continue to be amazed at God’s redemption purposes revealed so beautifully in the word, written—because it points to the Word, Living.
This blog is dedicated to encourging people in daily Bible reading.